Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Prepared Exclusively for the Plaintiff (p.2) L
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT A 9
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
QC CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, LLC, a ) p
Delaware Limited Liability ) 4 p
Company, ) ‘
) . 7
Plaintiff, ) No. CV ‘03 I997
) PHX ROS 4 I
vs. ) p
l {
COHILL'S BUILDING SPECIALTIES, ) i
INC. and MICHAEL COHILL, ) x
) é
Defendants. ) g
)
. ) I *
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. )
) .
THE DEPOSITION OF SHELLEY A. COHILL-LAFEVERS I
Scottsdale, Arizona
February 3, 2005
4:05 p.m.
I Prepared for: Prepared By:
MR. RUSSELL K. RYAN LISA J. ANDERSON, RPR p
* Certified Court Reporter
Certificate Number 50079
CANYON STATE REPORTING, LTD.
77 E. Columbus, Suite 102
(Copy) Phoenix, AZ 85012-235l
case 2:03-cv—O1997-F@@@YO}D é}1j§1]§%<§l;;jEHl6U 0%%/2005 Page 1 of 3

Prepared exclusively for the Plaintiff (p.2) 24 I
ohamm ll A. Okay. Yes, I received the packing list that
omsmm 2 came in with the replenished material. I added that to my i
omauw 3 consignment inventory that I turned in at the end of every 3
mains 4 month to QC. i
04:21:47 5 Q. Okay. I
umsnw 61 A. So they would have a correct balance of what i
omanm 7 came in, what went out. ‘ V i
omzum 8 Q. Okay. Yesterday, Mike Cohill testified that E
omzum 9 Cohills did not purchase any more iron oxides from QC g
0k3kM.lO after January 2003, and this afternoon your mom testified y
charm ll that after January 2003 no iron oxides were —— other than t
ohamu l2i the consignment inventory that was already there —— i i
omzmm l3 A. Well, that would be correct, I believe.
caszmz l4 MR. KLAIN: Let him finish.
ohaam l5 THE WITNESS: I‘m sorry.
omamm l6 BY MR. RYAN:
uqnam l7i Q. After January of 2003, other than consuming the i
omzmm l8 consignment inventory, no other orders for iron oxide were
m¤n;w l9 placed from QC. Do you agree with that? 3
omzmm 20 A. Bayferrox by QC products, is that ——
m;w;w 2l Q. Yes.
ouzmw 22 A. Okay. I am only clarifying that because I don't
shaun 23i know if iron oxide goes into color hardner or release, I
m;w;w 24 really don't know the makeup, but Bayferrox by QC
omamw 25 products, I believe that would be correct, that we didn't
Case 2:03-cv-O1997-R®SYOPD @1¥1EDE;g>;%“;EW€d 097%*3/2005 Page 2 of 3

Prepared exclusively for the Plaintiff (p.2) 25 I
Mwnsz l purchase from them.
Mensa 2 Q. Okay. After January of 2003? I
Mwzms 3 A. I believe. Yeah. I mean, I don't know years y
cnsnw 4 very well, so —— i I
Mensa 5 Q. Okay. But even after January of 2003, there wasl I
0k3&M 6 significant consignment inventory at Cohills; correct?
04:23:03 7 A. Yes.
onanm 8 Q. And as that was consumed, it was paid for; is 3
0nw:M 9 that correct? Maybe not at the exact time, but within a 2
onsnm I0 month or so? i
0nw:m ll A. I need to go back and say whether or not the y
cnsnn l2 consignment inventory at that time belonged to us or it A
cnanm I3 belonged to them, as far as those dates I do not know.
O4Q3£9 l4 Q. Okay.
Mn3n3l5 A. That consignment, what you are calling
onanm I6 consignment inventory, may have been ours at that time, I
cnwnw l7 don't honestly know. I would have to know when that final
onynw l8 inventory was taken and I don't remember.
0nw:M l9 Q. Okay. Well, assuming it was in 2004 for a
0M3kM 20 moment, the consignment inventory did not become yours,
0nw:w 2l Cohills, when I say yours as opposed to yours personally
onanm 224 or individually, it did not become yours until that
0nw:m 23 reconciliation took place where QC and Bayer i
onsnm 24 representatives were present; right?
onanm 25: A. Right.
cass 2:03-cv—O1997-I§®°SYOI\I>5cg5j;r§gg §gEHgd 0512672005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01997-ROS

Document 106

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01997-ROS

Document 106

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01997-ROS

Document 106

Filed 09/26/2005

Page 3 of 3